Appeal 2007-2127
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,621
"the 1990 Application for the '603 patent as originally filed makes explicit
what was inherent to one of ordinary skill: that the disclosed conventional
lexical and syntactic analysis techniques were earlier used for analyzing
natural language (e.g., English)" (Br. 99).
The issue is whether there is written description support in the '604
patent, not in the '603 patent. Whether the amendments to the '603 patent
were properly entered is not before us. Moreover, the '603 patent mentioned
natural languages, which disclosure is omitted in the '604 patent.
Patent Owner's arguments do not persuade us that there is written
description support for claims directed to words and sentences and spelling
and grammar checking of a natural language. This reason for the rejections
of claims 39-43, 47-49, 51-56, 61-67, 73. 74, 76, 77, and 79 is affirmed.
6. Group 19
As to group 19 (claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 14, 18, 24, 26, 27, 31, 33, and 824),
the Examiner finds that adding the limitation "processing" before the words
"thread" or "task" lacks written description (Final Rejection 33-35 ¶ II.3(I)).
The Examiner interprets "processing thread" to be the thread that is currently
executing on the CPU and changing "thread" to "processing thread" changes
the state of the thread from a waiting (suspended) thread to a running thread,
which is inconsistent with the '604 patent disclosure (Final Rejection 34).
Patent Owner argues that "processing" is an adjective describing the
type of thread, not a present participle meaning that the thread is "running,"
as interpreted by the Examiner (Br. 103). It is argued that a "processing
4 Claim 82 is not mentioned in the rejection, but is apparently rejected
only because it depends on rejected claim 26.
142
Page: Previous 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013